The subject here is a debating format which might work on OS. Below is a proposed format to be used for debates on OS. Comments regarding the viability of such a format are welcomed, as are proposed additions/deletions from the below format. (You are encouraged to point out typos and grammatical errors, too.) If/when any reasonable consensus is reached regarding the format, then the discussion could move on to potential "motions" for debate.

I. Introduction

The Open Salon Debate Format described below is meant to allow writers to engage in debates using Open Salon posts. These debates will have one debater representing the affirmative and another debater representing the negative. A moderator will create a single "main debate post" that lists and links to all debate posts. The moderator's "main debate post" will be open for comments, while all the posts made by the debaters will be closed for comments.

II. General Open Salon Debate Rules

The purpose of these rules is to ensure that all participants enter into debates sharing a common set of expectations, while at the same time allowing debaters a degree of creative freedom.

The debaters and moderator should, in advance of the debate, agree on the motion to be debated and on which side each debater will take. Open Salon Debates will be limited to a single motion per debate. Motions should be general enough to be understood by a well-educated high school or college student, and should identify two features that will define the debate:

1. An issue of substance on which the debate should focus, concerning a public, social, or philosophical topic of interest.
2. The stance that the affirmative must take toward the issue. The stance identified by the motion may be one of fact (i.e. correct or incorrect, true or false), of value (i.e. right or wrong, moral or immoral), of relationship (i.e., one thing does or does not cause another; one thing is or is not similar to another), or of policy (i.e., some policy should or should not be adopted).

B. Interpretation of the Motion

1. The debaters may interpret and define the motion as they see fit, provided that they do so in a reasonable fashion. The affirmative debater should interpret the topic as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The affirmative is not required to provide a literal interpretation of the motion, and may instead create a metaphorical interpretation. The affirmative's objective is to make an adequate case for its interpretation of the motion. To this end, the affirmative debater should introduce one or more arguments in support of the motion as they have interpreted it, and sustain their case throughout the debate.

2. The opposition debater argues against the motion.
   1. The opposition may counter the affirmative debater's interpretation of the proposition if they believe it is not reasonable (i.e. if the affirmative debater has misidentified some substantive issue, or taken a stance toward the issue that is contrary to the resolution).
   2. The opposition may challenge any aspect of the affirmative debater's case. For instance, it may challenge the interpretation of the resolution, the factual and analytical foundations of the case, the underlying assumptions of the claims, or any costs associated with the arguments.
   3. The opposition debater should also offer his or her own arguments against the affirmative debater's claims.

III. The Open Salon Debate Format

A. The debate will consist of six posts, which proceed as follows:

1. Affirmative Constructive (posted by affirmative debater)
2. Negative Constructive (posted by opposition debater)
3. First Affirmative Rebuttal (posted by affirmative debater)
4. First Negative Rebuttal (posted by opposition debater)
5. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (posted by affirmative debater)
6. Second Negative Rebuttal (posted by oposition debater)

The moderator will maintain the "main debate post," will add links to each post as they become available, and will call for the next response via mail. There is no time limit on posting responses, but posting within 72 hours of the moderator's call for a response is strongly encouraged. Reference to any information outside the knowledge of the general public must be documented with references using Internet links. References/links are limited to 12 per post, in order to allow a reader with a reasonable amount of information to digest. Debaters should notify the moderator by mail when a response is posted.

B. Each post has a specific purpose:

1. Affirmative Constructive

   The affirmative makes a case for the motion by demonstrating that the motion is more probably true than false. The affirmative interprets the motion for debate, defines any ambiguous terms, and otherwise clarifies the foundation for the argument. The affirmative may also choose to offer a history of the issue in contention. After providing a clear foundation for the debate, the affirmative presents a case. This will consist of an exposition of arguments in support of debater's interpretation of the motion. The case will typically consists of two or three main arguments, with corresponding examples or other forms of contemporary or historical evidence. The writer should draw on sound reasoning and sufficient examples to make concise, complete, and compelling arguments on each point of the case. A succinct interpretation of the motion is known as a case statement.

2. Negative Constructive

   The negative uses tactics of direct and indirect refutation to counter the affirmative's case. The negative may challenge the definition of the motion, the affirmative's decision framework for the debate, and/or the main arguments of the case. The writer might also offer counters to the examples presented in the affirmative case. The negative may also argue indirectly against the affirmative's case. Indirect argumentation involves issues that are not formally included in the affirmative constructive, but which are related to consideration of the issue. These arguments include disadvantages, counter-plans, and critiques. The optimal negative strategy in this post is to present some combination of direct and indirect refutation, carefully selecting from among all available negative arguments the more effective ones. The negative is not obliged to disagree with every argument of the affirmative's case. Agreement may focus the discussion on those points in genuine controversy, or may support a different and more powerful position for the negative.

3. First Affirmative Rebuttal

   The affirmative has two tasks in this post. First, he or she must outline their refutations of the negative arguments. Second, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the negative (that is, the negative's objections to the affirmative case). If the affirmative does not refute a given point in the negative case, then the point stands; if the affirmative debater does not respond to a particular negative objection, then the objection is conceded. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented.

4. First Negative Rebuttal

   As with the affirmative rebuttal described above, the negative debater has a dual task: first, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the affirmative, and second, he or she should continue to attack the affirmative case. At this point in the debate, the negative debater may start to draw the reader's attention to points that have been dropped. That is, he or she will indicate items to which the affirmative has not responded. Such a dropped point is treated as a concession made by the affirmative debater. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented.

5. Second Affirmative Rebuttal

   The task of the affirmative in this post is reactive. He or she should renew refutations that have not been addressed adequately. Usually, this means pointing out flaws in the negative rebuttal. At this point, most good debaters will deliberately let some points drop and will focus the reader's attention on the key issues in the round. The debater may or may not instruct the reader; that is, the writer may or may not articulate a standard of judgment for the reader. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented.

6. Second Negative Rebuttal

   In essence, the second negative rebuttal is similar to the second affirmative rebuttal. Readers should be especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the affirmative debater has no chance to respond, so a new argument is especially unfair.

C. Rules During the Debate

1. Debaters may use information that a knowledgeable individual could reasonably be expected to know. Debaters may refer to any public information, and may request that their opponent explain specific information with which they are unfamiliar.
2. References to information of a less than general nature (e.g., links to research sources) should be limited to 12 per post.
3. All references should include a working Internet link. Any reference not documented with an Internet link should be thoroughly identified so that readers might find it in a public library or university library. If the information (e.g., a paper published in a research journal) is not freely available to the readers, then a minimum of an author's abstract must be provided (via a link).
4. Debaters must close the comments sections on their posts. Comments on the debate should be made to the "main debate post" maintained by the moderator.
5. Until all 6 posts by the debaters have been posted, debaters may not comment on the "main debate post." After all debate posts have been posted, debaters may add comments to the "main debate post."

IV. The Role of the Moderator

The moderator's primary responsibility is to maintain an "main debate post" that links to all debate posts made by the debaters.

Prior to accepting a moderator assignment, a moderator must agree to:

1. conduct the debate on the basis of the above rules
2. refrain from commenting on the substance of the debate in any forum
3. call attention to rule violations using the "main debate post" comments
4. refrain from deleting any comments in the "main debate post"

V. The Role of the Readers

1. Readers are strongly encouraged to point out rule violations by debaters.
2. Readers are encouraged to comment on the validity of points made by debaters.
3. Readers should refrain from raising subjects not directly related to the debate motion
4. Readers should refrain from judging a debate "winner" until all debate posts have been made.
5. Readers should point out when other readers violate the above guidelines.

I have liberally borrowed from the International Debate Education Association's Internet Debate Standards in composing these rules.